澳大利亚专家证据可采性规则研究

在科学技术突飞猛进的时代，随着社会分工的细化和专业化程度的提高，专家证据在诉讼中的作用越来越大。澳大利亚的专家证人制度虽起源于英国，但经过独立后几十年的发展，颇具特色，尤其是在专家证据的可采性方面，已形成了一整套相当具体、完备的规则，如专门知识规则、专家性规则、普通知识规则、基本规则和终局性问题规则等。为了克服专家证据带有偏向性和专家证人被滥用的弊端．澳大利亚在当前的司法改革中提出了不少相应的对策，这为我国亟待改革的司法鉴定制度提供了一些有益的借鉴。     

英国专家证据可采性问题研究

现代科学技术的突飞猛进,使社会分工越来越细,专业化要求越来越高,在刑事诉讼中专家证据的作用也越来越明显.英美法系国家的专家证人制度起源于英国,经过几个世纪无数判例的积累和发展,有关专家证据的可采性问题已形成一整套相当具体、完备的规则,如专家资格规则、有用性规则,专业技术领域规则、普通知识规则以及终局性问题规则等.在现代刑事诉讼中,专家证据的重要性越来越明现,其在改革中的发展趋势,可以为我国亟待完善的司法鉴定制度提供一些有价值的借鉴作用.     

普通证人意见证据规则之初探

英美法系国家把证人分为专家证人和普通证人,意见规则便是规范证人证言的证据规则。相对于专家证人的意见证据规则的原则可采性和公然明确性,普通证人的意见证据更具例外性和隐蔽性。因此,在司法实践中被误用的可能性更大。文章从意见证据规则的一般原理入手,重点介绍普通证人意见证据以及提出对我国构建和完善普通证人意见证据规则的理论建议和程序建议。     

论专家证人制度在英国民事司法改革后的新发展

本文先从介绍英国民事司法改革与专家证人制度入手,重点论述了专家证人制度在英国新的《民事诉讼规则》生效后的发展,包括专家证人对法院的优先职责、专家报告等方面。随后,就单一联合证人专家制度展开分析。最后,文章从比较法的视角论证了英国专家证人制度对于我国修订民事诉讼法鉴定制度的借鉴意义。     

专家证据的价值与我国司法鉴定制度的修改

随着科学技术的飞速发展，专家证据在诉讼中发挥着越来越重要的作用。在英美法系国家，专家证据制度在专家证人资格规定上的广泛性和选任上的自由性，使其在适用上具有灵活性和实用性的特点，其详细而完备的专家证据可采性规则，更是司法经验的积累与法官智慧的结晶。英美法系国家的专家证据制度和大陆法系的鉴定制度，在近些年的改革中呈现出共同的趋向，如启动程序的多样化、过错责任的严格化和庭审对抗的强化，这为完善我国司法鉴定制度、准确适用新刑诉法中有关专家辅助人的规定以及充分发挥专家证据的作用开启了新的思路。面对我国司法鉴定中依然相当混乱的鉴定主体问题，构建鉴定人、专家顾问和专家辅助人三位一体的司法鉴定主体格局，或许是一条比较合理可行的出路。     

专家辅助人出庭质证规则研究

现代科学技术的迅猛发展对司法审判产生了巨大的影响,各种科学问题、技术证据、鉴定意见呈现于法庭,法官在审判案件中由于知识和经验的局限性而难以判断,在此背景下专家辅助人制度应运而生。英美法系有专家证人制度,存在完善的以交叉询问为主的专家证人出庭质证规则,大陆法系国家和地区有诉讼辅助人制度,虽然立法中没有明确的出庭质证规则,但是有完善的鉴定人出庭质证规则。我国当前专家辅助人出庭质证规则没有明确的规定,但准用证人出庭质证规则。不过目前缺乏进一步的理论阐述,且简单直接适用也存在问题,同时缺乏系统的、具体的、具有可操作性的质证规则。对此笔者提出构建专家辅助人出庭质证规则的建议。     

鉴定意见的审查与运用规则

鉴定结论改为鉴定意见,对刑事司法规范鉴定意见的审查与运用提出了新要求.英美国家从意见证据的相关性、意见证据所依据科学原理、方法的可靠性等方面规范专家证人意见证据的可采性,对我国规范鉴定意见的审查与运用具有重要借鉴意义.我国应当结合新刑事诉讼法基本框架,借鉴英美国家专家证人意见证据规则,以相关性规则、必要性规则、可靠性规则、合规性规则、充分性规则、适格性规则为内部性规则,以鉴定人出庭作证规则、专家辅助规则、采信理由公开规则为外部性规则,从内、外两个方面规范鉴定意见的审查与运用,以确保刑事司法的公正性.     

美国法中基于品格证据的证人弹劾

证人弹劾是对抗制司法证明程序中的重要环节,为诉讼方盘查对方证人或敌意证人的可信性提供了合法手段,也为事实认定者合理评价言词证据的证明力提供了程序保障。影响证人证言品质的因素是多元的,因此存在多种弹劾方法,其中"以品格证据弹劾证人"因涉及到品格证据的特殊可采性规则而需特别关注。美国证据法允许使用证人的不诚实品性来攻击证人证言的可信性,这是进行"证明价值Vs危险性"权衡的结果。证明品性的具体方法受到法律规制:允许使用名声和意见证言证明不诚实品性,但以具体行为或先前定罪记录证明不诚实品性则受到严格限制。美国证据法中以品性弹劾证人可信性的规则,对于我国证据制度改革,尤其是未来我国证人弹劾规则的创设具有借鉴意义。     

对抗制危机中的专家证人制度

在现代证据法发展的过程中,专家证人在诉讼中的作用越来越大,证据法的科学化无疑将是证据法在新时期的一个重要发展方向。专家证人制度作为英美法系特有的证据制度,与对抗制传统一脉相承,而对抗制在当代英美法系国家正呈现一种不断衰退的迹象,在对抗制、集中审理制度、陪审团制度这三大制度群下研究专家证人制度,分析这三大制度的衰退对专家证人制度的影响,并结合专家证人制度的利弊,分析各国学界及实务界对专家证人制度改革的不同看法,对专家证人的未来之路及对我国专家辅助人制度的立法完善提出建议。     

专家证人制度在知识产权诉讼中的运用及其完善

《国家知识产权战略纲要》明确提出要建立和完善专家证人诉讼制度.专家证人制度在各国,尤其是英美法系国家证据法中是不可或缺的重要制度,对于解决技术事实争议具有重要价值.近年来,知识产权审判实践一直在积极尝试技术专家证人制度的适用.即根据现行司法解释关于诉讼辅助人制度的规定,同时借鉴域外法的规定,探索当事人聘请专家证人与法庭指定专家证人相结合的方式,协助法庭查明相关技术事实.有关专家证人适格性标准、专家证人出庭方式、专家意见可采性标准以及裁判文书表述等的相关研究,一方面满足了解决技术事实认定难的司法现实需求,另一方面也为专家证人制度的进一步发展不断积累了经验.实践证明,通过司法实践不断加强实际操作,总结、研究并提炼相应规则,专家证人制度在知识产权诉讼中完全可以与传统司法技术鉴定制度并行存在并获得发展.尽管专家证人制度的建立和完善困难重重,但稳步推进是知识产权审判发展的必然趋势.     

科学证据可采性规则研究

科学证据是运用科学知识和科学方法对证据分析所得的判断意见。因此,科学证据属于意见性证言。为防止不可靠的科学证据对法庭的误导,英美法系国家建立了科学证据可采性规则,包括相关性规则、必要性规则、专家证人资格规则、排除规则、可靠性规则。美国科学证据可靠性规则经历了从Frye规则、Daubert规则到修订后的《联邦证据规则》702条的嬗变。我国对鉴定意见的审查主要限于相关性和合法性的审查。由于缺少对鉴定意见可靠性审查的指导与限制,导致了错误裁决的风险。本文提出确立鉴定意见科学可靠性规则的构想,以利于法官排除错误的鉴定意见,同时有助于法庭科学实验室的管理与制度完善,促使法庭科学实验室更严谨更科学地为法庭提供优质的法庭科学服务。     

社会科学证据在美国的发展及其启示

我国的民事、行政法庭中已经出现了社会研究报告这种全新的证据形式,它实际上是社会科学证据的典型代表。社会科学证据已经在美国经历了超过百年的发展历史,最早可以追溯到上世纪初出现的"布兰代斯辩论摘要"。在经历了司法实践多年的考验之后,社会科学证据终于从上世纪70年代之后在美国获得了长足发展。如今,社会科学证据在美国的法庭中已得到了广泛的应用。我国可以学习美国的经验,将社会科学证据放在科学证据的框架之下进行研究和应用,这将成为我国证据法学理论的一个重要突破。基于当前的司法证明实践,应当对社会科学证据的证据属性、证据形式、公证问题、审查认定规则等重点问题加强研究。     

EVIDENTIARY ISSUES WITH PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME

Expert testimony on unsubstantiated social science syndromes such as the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) has been increasingly admitted in courtrooms across the United States. This is a problem because a trier of fact is making a determination based on theories that are inaccurate or incorrect. To remedy this, the standards of admissibility for expert testimony must be heightened. The broad discretion given to trial judges in determining admissibility should be reevaluated and a new rule of evidence for social science testimony should be adopted.     

Of earprints, fingerprints, scent dogs, cot deaths and cognitive contamination--a brief look at the present state of play in the forensic arena

Over the last decades, the importance of technical and scientific evidence for the criminal justice system has been steadily increasing. Unfortunately, the weight of forensic evidence is not always easy for the trier of fact to assess, as appears from a brief discussion of some recent cases in which the weight of expert evidence was either grossly over- or understated. Also, in recent years, questions surrounding the value of forensic evidence have played a major role in the appeal and revision stages of a number of highly publicized criminal cases in several countries, including the UK and the Netherlands. Some of the present confusion is caused by the different ways in which conclusions are formulated by experts working within the traditional approach to forensic identification, as exemplified by (1) dactyloscopy and (2) the other traditional forensic identification disciplines like handwriting analysis, firearms analysis and fibre analysis, as opposed to those working within the modern scientific approach used in forensic DNA analysis. Though most clearly expressed in the way conclusions are formulated within the diverse fields, these differences essentially reflect the scientific paradigms underlying the various identification disciplines. The types of conclusions typically formulated by practitioners of the traditional identification disciplines are seen to be directly related to the two major principles underpinning traditional identification science, i.e. the uniqueness assumption and the individualization principle. The latter of these is shown to be particularly problematic, especially when carried to its extreme, as embodied in the positivity doctrine, which is almost universally embraced by the dactyloscopy profession and allows categorical identification only. Apart from issues arising out of the interpretation of otherwise valid expert evidence there is growing concern over the validity and reliability of the expert evidence submitted to courts. While in various countries including the USA, Canada and the Netherlands criteria have been introduced which may be used as a form of input or output control on expert evidence, in England and Wales expert evidence is much less likely to be subject to forms of admissibility or reliability testing. Finally, a number of measures are proposed which may go some way to address some of the present concerns over the evaluation of technical and scientific evidence.     

刑事证据制度重点问题实施状况调研报告

2012年新刑诉法增加非法证据排除规则、庭前会议制度、证人出庭作证等条款,这对保障犯罪嫌疑人、被告人、证人等主体权益有着积极意义,但其中也有亟需解决的问题。在非法证据排除程序方面,首先需要明确“非法证据”的范围,促使法院敢于适用排除程序,将其与侦查谋略等区分开来,也需妥善处理重复自白材料和纪检部门取得材料之适用等问题;庭前会议制度中,首先要通过立法来解决其能否处理实质问题,细化该制度的具体流程以便法院的执行;在证人出庭方面,则需要细化强制证人到庭、证人保护等制度以增强其可行性,明确侦查人员出庭的角色与程序,进一步健全鉴定人出庭制度。     

对科学证据的反思--以程序为视角的关照

科学证据就是借助科学原理和技术方法发现和揭示出来的各种事实材料,其内涵是科学原理和技术的证明性,其外延则由于法律对科学知识的确认而表现出开放性的特点。因此,科学证据具有科学性、开放性和证明过程的复杂性的特征。证据法学应该放在程序法学中加以关照和认识,英美法系国家的陪审团制和对抗制同科学证据的适应性关系在某种程度上就是科学证据与诉讼程序之间关系的集中反映。以程序的视角规范科学证据包括审前证据规则的设置和审判过程中对于科学证据规则的强调。     

澳大利亚联邦法院对专家证据的采纳

I. Introduction
The opinion evidence of experts is an exception to the general rule that witnesses can only give evidence of that which they have seen or heard and may not give evidence of inferences which arise from their observations and from that which they have heard.     

Will the law come running? The potential role of "brain fingerprinting" in crime investigation and adjudication in Australia

A major feature of the Australian criminal justice system is that jurors assess witness credibility and are the ultimate finders of fact. Recognising the occasional fallibility of humans in detecting truth and deception, the jury's function may be assisted by highly regulated expert evidence about a variety of scientific techniques. A recent scientific development has been the invention of "brain fingerprinting" (BF) by Dr Larry Farwell in the United States. Brain fingerprinting measures brainwave functioning to detect awareness of crime-relevant information in order to distinguish between guilty and innocent suspects. This article considers whether BF could be used for crime investigation and adjudication in Australia. By examining the rules of expert evidence and the principles relating to "novel scientific evidence", the admissibility of BF in the various Australian jurisdictions is evaluated. The utility of BF in criminal investigations and counter-terrorism initiatives is also canvassed. The authors conclude that, at the present time, it is unlikely that expert testimony on BF will be admitted in Australian criminal trials. However, the technique potentially offers other benefits to the criminal justice system, thereby warranting its consideration as a "criminal and investigative tool of the future".